Wednesday, 25 March 2009

Being an unappreciated housewife - Bad TimesGoing on a secret trip with Louise - Good TimesGoing to a bar with Louise,dancing with a stranger - Good TimesBeing raped in the car park - Bad TimesLouise saving her - Good TimesLouise shooting the rapists - Bad TimesGoing on the run - Bad Timesstanding up to her husband - Good TimesSaving her and Louise from being arrested - Good TimesMeeting Brad Pitt - Good TimesSleeping with Brad Pitt - Good TimesBeing robbed - Bad TimesRobbing a local Store - Good TimesBecoming more mature by the experience - Good TimesShooting Earl's lorry till it explodes - Good TimesBeing pursuited by police - Bad TimesTrapped on a cliff edge - Bad TimesKeeping their freedom by dying - Good TimesI can't remember if thats the order exactly in some places but these I think are the main points in Thelma's Journey.

Monday, 15 December 2008

The Life Of Brian : Directed by Terry JonesAs one of those rare productions aimed squarely enough at a belief system to generate instant controversy, Life of Brian has a reputation. Around it, undimmed by the passage of decades, swarms an angry halo of fear, hatred and intolerance. Even now it stands apart from anything else Monty Python, an evil example to clean-living folk wherever they reside. And yet it's just a film, a mere comedy with the temerity to think naughty thoughts about a sacred subject. In essence it encapsulates the existence of Brian (Graham Chapman), a contemporary of Jesus, from his birth just a few mangers away. Through cruel circumstance Brian becomes the most successful comrade in the People's Front of Judea, as led by Reg (John Cleese), before being captured and executed by the occupying Romans.The film has been seen as a critique of excessive religiosity, depicting organised and popular religion as hypocritical and fanatical. The film's satire on unthinking religious devotion is epitomised by Brian's attempt to persuade an enormous crowd of his followers to think for themselves:Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!Brian: You're all different!The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!Man in Crowd: I'm not...The Crowd: Shhh!The film also satirises both the tendency to interpret banal incidents as "signs from God" and the factions and infighting that can emerge from this. For example, when Brian loses his shoe, some of his over-zealous followers declare it to be a sign but they can't agree on what it means, while one other instructs them to "Cast off the shoe. Follow the gourd!" (which is viewed by some as being significant owing to Brian's seemingly charitable refusal to accept a price for it - and not even haggle over what it is worth - the truth actually being that it was a cheap, unwanted gift).The (alleged) representation of Christ proved controversial. Protests against the film were organised based on its perceived blasphemy. On its initial release in the UK, the film was banned by several town councils – some of which had no cinemas within their boundaries, or had not even seen the film for themselves. A member of Harrogate council, one of those that banned the film, revealed during a television interview that the council had not seen the film, and had based their opinion on what they had been told by the Nationwide Festival of Light, of which they knew nothing. Some bans continued into the 21st century. In 2008, Torbay Council finally permitted the film to be shown after it won an online vote for the English Riviera International Comedy Film Festival,while the mayor of the Welsh town of Aberystwyth (Sue Jones-Davies, who played Judith Iscariot in the film) was still trying to remove the local council's long ban of the film.In New York, screenings were picketed by both rabbis and nuns ("Nuns with banners!" observed Michael Palin) while the film was banned outright in some American states. It was also banned for eight years in the Republic of Ireland and for a year in Norway (it was marketed in Sweden as '"The film so funny that it was banned in Norway"). Occasionally forgotten amongst the blasphemy accusations, the film also significantly pokes fun at politically revolutionary groups, who seem to share a common cause (in the film, they are all opposing the Roman occupation of Judea) but are in fact more interested in the easier task of being at odds with one another, constantly engaged in futile disputes about which group has the most charisma, infamy and "ideological purity", as Cleese once referred to it. The Peoples' Front of Judea harangue their 'rivals' with cries of "splitters"; their rivals being The Judean People's Front, the Judean Popular People's Front and the Popular Front of Judea ("He's over there"). Other scenes have the freedom fighters wasting time in debate, with one of the debated items being that they should not waste their time debating so much, as well as the famous scene where Reg gives his "What have the Romans ever done for us?" speech. Originally intending for everyone to agree that the question is rhetorical, it eventually ends up as: "Alright, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?", "Brought peace?", "Shut up!"This element (which is not dissimilar to the film's comments on religious sectarianism) furthers Cleese's claim from the Aspen stage interview that there is a more general social message in the film regarding belief systems and group thinking, beyond only heretical satire of religious faiths. According to the DVD commentary, this part of the story was inspired mainly by the multiplication of ineffectual left-wing parties in Britain during the 1970s. These revolutionary groups would splinter every few weeks, and be angrier at each other than they were at the government.In my opinion the only scene I could see myself shocked at was the crucifix scene at the end. I don't find the fact that Brian is a fictional representation of Jesus shocking not when there are videos on youtube of people dressed as Jesus singing songs as they walk down the street. I think The film although shocking is at the end of the day a comedy. You have to watch it with that set in your mind. I think that the hype that this film has caused has ruined it's effect especially as religion has become so much weaker in society. It's so much easier to laugh about religion than it is to actually believe in it. I think the film raises some valuable points about organised religion and the speech in which Brian says "We are all individual" Is so true. I remember during that R.E day we had a certain someone tried to convert the whole room into Christianity. As a piece of cinema I found it quite funny but it's one of those films in which I think has been spoiled because of the controversy that surrounds it. Plus I'm not overally religious anyway so I am in a much easier position to find the jokes funny rather than shocking.

Siskel and Elbert review on The Last Crusade. Interesting to see their opinions because they were influencial reviewers...Also the fact that Siskel decided to have a go at the film is interesting aswell.

This was my script for that 5 min presentation we had to do, Just putting it up here for reminders when I begin writing my new script.

“What you taught me was that I wasn’t as important as people who had been dead for 500 years in another country.”Indiana Jones - The Last Crusade.This quote demonstrates the core of the conflict between Indiana Jones and his father Henry Jones. For my small scale research project I am analysing the relationships between Fathers and their sons in films within the Lucasfilm institution. It is argued that the relationship and chemistry between Indianna (Harrison Ford) and Henry (Sean Connery) makes The Last Crusade the most successful of the Indiana Jones series. The film focuses on the search for the Holy Grail. It was Lucas who wanted the grail to be used in the film, however Spielberg saw no potential in the grail alone and decided that it would be far more powerful as a metaphor for their relationship. The grail represents the abyss that has to be closed in order to repair the character’s bond. By Henry Jones devoting his life to finding the grail and Indiana going on a quest to find the grail in order to save his father it creates a parallel between the two characters. At the beginning of the film the viewer sees Indiana as a young boy stealing an artefact from grave robbers. There is then a transition to Indiana as a man fighting the same grave robbers for the same artefact as a grown man. The fact that Indy still has the same beliefs as he did when he was a boy makes it very easy to understand how his father has such authority over him, There are several moments in the film in which Henry proves this either by giving Indy a certain disapproving look or taking a more physical approach for instance slapping him across the face. It is apparent that Indy constantly tries to impress his father throughout the film through both brain and brawn however his attempts usually fail and infact having the complete opposite effect. He even wears a tie throughout most of the film which suggests an idea that he is trying to look more intellectual in order to get what he truly desires, his fathers approval.This constant conflict between the pair relates strongly to that between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader and that of Indiana and his own son Mutt. It creates an idea of polar opposites, in The Last Crusade the polar opposite is the Hero versus the useless Librarian, In The Crystal Skull it is old age versus youth and in the case of Star Wars, it’s good versus evil. The theme of tension between fathers and their children runs throughout many of Lucas’s projects “Deeply ingrained in our reality is our relationships to our parents and our relationship to our kids” a quote from Lucas himself which suggests that the chemistry between fathers and their children within his films makes them feel more human. In Star Wars Darth Vader is almost a representation of Lucas’s own father wanting him to go into the family business of selling office supplies. This link between Lucas’s own experience allowed him to create a more realistic approach to the situation when Darth Vader reveals he is Luke’s father. This also comes into the 4TH Indiana film where Mutt says he wants to be a mechanic, at this point Indy replies “If that’s what you love doing don’t let anyone tell you different.” However Indiana goes back on his word when he finds out Mutt is his son and becomes very disapproving of the idea, infact Indy acts very similar to his own father at this stage. This again is another connection to George Lucas branching out into film making rather than the family business.There are two key moments in Henry and Indiana’s relationship during the last crusade. The is an action sequence in which a tank that Henry believe Indy is on falls down a gorge and explodes. Thinking that his son is dead Henry realises that he has wasted their potential relationship. He states. “I never told him anything, I just wasn’t ready Marcus. 5 Minutes would have been enough.” This moment really contrasts a scene earlier in the film where Indy wants to have a conversation with his father but they have nothing to talk about.Show ClipThis is the real pivotal moment in their relationship where Henry for the first time addresses his son by his name. Throughout the film he refers to Indy as “Junior” this again shows his authority, by calling Indy by his name shows that he sees him as a man, and by calling him Indiana gets his attention from the grail and that one word tells Indy that life is worth far more than the grail ever could.

I finally did it =]I decided to use my parents because I wanted to have the opinion of someone who was both a father and a son, I also wanted to see how the relationships in the film effect a female audience simply to add a new dimension to my research.(Shows a clip of indy and his father in the zeppelin)Do you think that this conversation effects the audience more than it does the characters within the scene?Dad: yeah I guess so because they argue a bit and then it just ends theres no....Mum: Resolution, I also think that it helps the audience out because it sets everything out for them so they know exactly what happened...It shows a more vulnerable side to Indy aswell, and could be a way of making him appear more appealing to a female audience because he seems so weak in front of his dad here.Dad: I don't think so, he's the one that brigns the conversation to the table, if any thing Connery looks weaker than Indiana Jones. I think this is more for the audience than the characters.(Shows "Luke I am your Father scene)How does you perception of Luke and Vader change after this scene?Mum: I think it makes Luke more questionable as a Hero because he is so weak at this stage of the film and I personally felt that it might be setting up Luke to join the Dark side in the next film.Dad:I think that it makes Vader more deeper as a character, like it reminds us he is a human...or living thin g and not just a black metal suit.So do you think Vader actually benefits from this scene?Mum: Yes, because it's not exactly a highlight in the film for Luke.Dad:Yeah, I'd go along with that.(shows clip from indy 4 where Marion, Mutt and Indy fight in back of a truck)How does Indy's behaviour and attitude towards Mutt change when he learns the truth?Dad: He becomes protective, and tries to immadiately take control over him.Mum:Yes he does but I think this is the moment when Indy see himself in the boy, theres that shot of him when Mutt gets the knife out and he has that proud parent look, although he doesn't approve of the boy not going to school I think he admires the way the boy acts to the situation.Dad: You know it's going to end up as a strong relationship because of that and it's a bit like Ford and Connery in the third film and that turned out ok in the end.Ok thank you.